Delgado et al v. Dorel Juvenile Group Inc
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, having considered the private and public interest factors, the court concludes that the Western District of Texas is more convenient when compared to the Northern District of Texas. The court grants Dorel's motion to transfer (doc. 6 ), and it transfers this action to the Western District of Texas, Midland-Odessa Division, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 8/20/2015) (ctf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JESSICA DELGADO and CARLOS
LEVARIO, Individually and as
Representatives of the ESTATE OF P.L.,
a Deceased Minor,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
DOREL JUVENILE GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§ Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-2067-D
§
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
This is a removed action arising from the death of P.L., a minor, who was ejected from her
child seat in an automobile accident. Plaintiffs allege that defendant Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc.
(“Dorel”) designed, manufactured, marketed, assembled, distributed, and/or tested the car seat (alone
or in conjunction with others) and is liable on various product liability theories for P.L.’s death and
plaintiffs’ injuries caused by her death. Dorel moves to transfer the case to the Western District of
Texas, Midland-Odessa Division—where the accident occurred—pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice. Plaintiffs have not responded
to the motion,1 and the court now grants it for the following reasons.2
1
Dorel filed the motion on July 15, 2015. Plaintiffs’ response was therefore due August 5,
2015. See N.D. Tex. Civ. R. 7.1(e). The motion is now ripe for decision.
2
Under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002 and the definition of “written opinion”
adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, this is a “written opinion[] issued by the
court” because it “sets forth a reasoned explanation for [the] court’s decision.” It has been written,
however, primarily for the parties, to decide issues presented in this case, and not for publication in
an official reporter, and should be understood accordingly.
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) codifies “the doctrine of forum non conveniens for the subset of cases
in which the transferee forum is within the federal court system.” Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S.
Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tex., ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 568, 580 (2013). It provides that, “[f]or the
convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil
action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division
to which all parties have consented.” When deciding a motion to transfer under § 1404(a), the court
first considers “whether the judicial district to which transfer is sought would have been a district
in which the claim could have been filed.” In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004)
(per curiam) (“Volkswagen I”). Once the court resolves this issue, it must in deciding whether to
transfer the case evaluate “a number of private and public interest factors, none of which are given
dispositive weight.” Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203 (citing Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar.
Co., 358 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2004)).
The private concerns include: (1) the relative ease of access to
sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure
the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing
witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a
case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. The public concerns include:
(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2)
the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3)
the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case;
and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws
[or] the application of foreign law.
Id. (citations omitted; bracketed material added). “Although [these] factors are appropriate for most
transfer cases, they are not necessarily exhaustive or exclusive.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Dorel must establish good cause for transferring
the case, meaning that it must satisfy the statutory requirements and clearly demonstrate that a
transfer is for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.
-2-
It is undisputed that the Western District of Texas is a judicial district in which this suit could
have been filed. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in “a judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” Plaintiffs allege in
their state-court petition that the accident occurred in Ector County, Texas, which is located within
the Western District of Texas (and, in fact, within the Midland-Odessa Division). See 28 U.S.C.
§ 124(d)(7). As Dorel points out, plaintiffs filed another lawsuit in the Western District of Texas,
Midland-Odessa Division, against General Motors, LLC, arising from the same accident (that suit
has since settled and been dismissed). See D. Br. 2; D. App. 21-27 (copy of complaint and civil
cover sheet).
Because plaintiffs have not responded to Dorel’s motion, the court need not extensively
discuss its consideration of the private and public interest factors. The accident occurred in Ector
County, Texas. Both plaintiffs are both residents of Odessa, Texas. The driver of the vehicle who
struck the vehicle in which P.L. was riding (and who died at the scene) resided in Odessa. At least
four witnesses to the accident reside in Odessa. The bodies of P.L. and the deceased driver were
transported to the Ector County Medical Examiner’s Officer following the accident, and plaintiffs
were treated at the Medical Center Hospital in Odessa. All of the private interest factors—the
relative ease of access to sources of proof, the availability of compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses, the cost of attendance for willing witnesses, and (4) all other practical
problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive—favor transferring the case.
Three of the public concerns—the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion, the
familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case, and the avoidance of unnecessary
problems of conflict of laws or the application of foreign law—are neutral, and one public
-3-
concern—the local interest in having localized interests decided at home—favors transfer.
Accordingly, having considered the private and public interest factors, the court concludes
that the Western District of Texas is more convenient when compared to the Northern District of
Texas. The court grants Dorel’s motion to transfer, and it transfers this action to the Western
District of Texas, Midland-Odessa Division, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The clerk of court is
directed to effect the transfer according to the usual procedure.
SO ORDERED.
August 20, 2015.
_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?